[SAGA-RG] saga core spec - final call

[Fisher, SM (Steve)]

Andre,

There is just one small thing I don't like. In section 3.8 it says:  
"Non-optional attributes MUST have a default value (which can be an
empty
string)."

We have found this rather inconvenient for the service discovery work
where we often return values which are not optional but have no default
value - for example the URL of a service. We have been obliged to give
these default values of empty strings which is misleading - and is not
even a valid URL (I think).

Would it break anything if this sentence were to be deleted?

I am sorry to bring this up at the last moment

Steve

> -----Original Message-----
> From: saga-rg-bounces at ogf.org 
> [mailto:saga-rg-bounces at ogf.org] On Behalf Of Andre Merzky
> Sent: 03 October 2007 21:37
> To: SAGA RG
> Cc: Gregory Newby; Shantenu Jha
> Subject: [SAGA-RG] saga core spec - final call
> 
> Hi group(s), 
> 
> the deed is done, finally, and we incorporated all public
> comments back into the SAGA spec, and then some.  And
> then some more.
> 
> So, we would like to have a one week final call within the
> SAGA groups before we resubmit to the OGF editor.  So,
> please, have a look at the document(s), and raise your voice
> if there is something you don't agree with.  There are no
> open known issues at the moment, no TODO's and no FIXME's.
> But the text needs reviewing from a native (or good) English
> speaker, and also needs some formatting fixes.  Shantenu and
> Thilo agreed to help with that, but more volonteers are VERY
> welcome!
> 
> I attach two versions of the document: the clean version
> which is to be resubmitted, and a version which includes
> markup of the changes.  The markup semantics is:
> 
>   red   : removed
>   green : fixed
>   blue  : added
> 
> For large parts of the text (the verbatim sections), you'll
> find diff style markups
> 
>   + : added
>   ! : fixed
>   - : removed
> 
> I'll try to come up with a detailed change log tomorrow or
> Friday, which should help you to understand the evolution of
> the document.
> 
> BTW, the spec grew bigger again, but mostly because of added
> details, and not of added semantics.
> 
> Cheers, Andre
> 
> 
> PS.: we know of course that a one week final call is short,
> but we would _really_ like to get the spec out of the door
> by OGF21.  If you have concerns about the short call, please
> let us know!
> 
> 
> -- 
> No trees were destroyed in the sending of this message, however,
> a significant number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.
>